Pizza Delivery

[KendallJ]

Consider it withdrawn for now. Defeat this first,

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935

and we can get back to the other issue later if you want.

Are you back to contracts? I thought we hashed this out and you dropped this line of argumentation?

If tipping is a big enough problem to worry about (as in Baseball Genius' delivery guys cant make enough money), then it is not at all certain so there is no contract.

If tipping is certain enough to make for an implied contract then delivery men have nothing to complain about.

[SkyTrooper]

Are you back to contracts? I thought we hashed this out and you dropped this line of argumentation?

I thought you were arguing that there is no such term as an implied agreement, and that what I was arguing for was properly characterized as an "implied contract."

When you said that an implied contract that establishes a payment to the driver fails at the "certain" criteria (it will not always happen). I argued that the times it did not happen were due to either people knowingly breaking the contract (criminals) and people coming up with complicated reasoning against paying the driver (philosophers who have made logical errors).

I was under the impression that all of our argument boiled down to the difference between and "implied agreement" and an "implied contract." An "implied agreement" is apparently different, and when I agreed to argue instead for an "implied contract" you took off.

[KendallJ]

I thought you were arguing that there is no such term as an implied agreement, and that what I was arguing for was properly characterized as an "implied contract."

When you said that an implied contract that establishes a payment to the driver fails at the "certain" criteria (it will not always happen). I argued that the times it did not happen were due to either people knowingly breaking the contract (criminals) and people coming up with complicated reasoning against paying the driver (philosophers who have made logical errors).

I was under the impression that all of our argument boiled down to the difference between and "implied agreement" and an "implied contract." An "implied agreement" is apparently different, and when I agreed to argue instead for an "implied contract" you took off.

Sorry there. I wasn't making a distinction.

Either

a. tipping could be viewed as an implied contract

OR

b. the non-payment of tips is common

But it cannot be both. If it is b. then it is uncertain. If it is a. then it is certain enough that anyone arguing that they can't survive because they get stiffed on tips is simply lying.

[SkyTrooper]

A "tip" is a gratuity. A "gratuity" implies that it is "voluntary". If it were required contractually as you are trying to argue, that it would be a payment or a fee, not a tip or a gratuity. For clarities sake, if you are going to continue to argue that it is required, please don't call it a tip or a gratuity, call it a fee or a payment.

I actually dropped the term "tip" in favor of "fee" a while ago. Right now I would define "driver's tip" as "a fee payed to a pizza delivery driver by a customer that is a certain percentage of the written bill, contingent on the performance of the driver in the areas of cleanliness, friendliness, and timeliness as judged by the customer. The fee is so notorious in the US that the agreement to pay the fee by the customer is implied when he orders a pizza for delivery."

It would appear now that you are making a legal case rather than a moral case.

I don't think so, if I were making a legal case I would have to find a precedent where a driver sued a customer who did not "tip" him even though his service was excellent.

Regardless of that, it still boils down to "if everyone else does, I'm obliged to do it too."

No I'm not saying that at all. You are confusing "custom" with "implied contract by custom."

A custom is a practice followed by people of a particular group or region. Obviously you cannot be morally required to do something just because everyone else does it. This line of thinking would probably lead you to something ridiculous like the anti-concept of a Kantian "duty."

An implied contract established by custom is a contract that has been transacted in a particular group or region so many times that the contract is mutually understood, but not stated. This is actually rather convenient, because so many people have used the contract that you don't have to negotiate every detail when you buy something. When you buy a car you don't have to ask "are the tires included?" When you mail a letter you don't have to ask "how long will it take to get there?" When you sit down at a restaurant you don't have to ask your server "am I expected to tip you if your service doesn't suck?" (at least, not until now)

Example of a Custom

Some guy thinks it would be nice to hold the door open for girls, so he does. Someone else sees it and does it too. 100 years later, it has become a Custom. You have never agreed to do this, so you have no legal or moral obligation to open doors for girls.

Example of an Implied Contract Established by Custom

Someone invents the horse drawn carriage and gets the bright idea to use it to transport people from one place to another, and charge them money for it. The first person to try this has to ask "what are you selling?", "how much per trip?", "will you pick up other customers on the way?", "will you agree to take me there by the shortest route possible?", "will you agree not to stop off and grab a few drinks at the Saloon while I wait?", etc. 1,500 years later all these things have been sorted out. Now you just have to jump in a cab and say "25th and State please." You can be reasonably expected to know what the contract is when you get in the cab even though you haven't discussed it with the cab driver, so you can't feign ignorance about what you were agreeing to by getting in the cab and requesting a destination. For something where significant time and money is involved, criminals will occasionally attempt to feign ignorance anyway and these things will be brought to court, where they gain recognition by law.

Regardless of whatever contextually objective reasoning a person may have, regardless of whatever best serves their rational self-interest, your argument suggests that you would have them obliged because of what the masses do. There is no getting around that that is the center-piece of your argument.

I hope my explanation on the difference between a custom and an implied contract by custom shows you why you are wrong about this. You can argue that the current objective criteria I am working with for an implied contract is wrong, or that a payment to a delivery driver does not meet the criteria, but I am getting tired of responding to the claim that there is no such entity. Your attack goes beyond 'A=B' to the realm of 'A does not exist.' I am certain that there is a such entity as an "implied contract" and that you can choose to enter into one.

However, the criteria you list still falls short, and where it falls short is contained in your breakdown.

Before I debate if the criteria is correct or if a payment to the delivery driver meets the criteria, I want you to concede that an "implied contract" can actually exist. Otherwise I am just wasting my time.

Where I live, no delivery service ensures that you will receive your food within a certain time period. They give you a time estimate, but rarely (if ever) any kind of compensation for food delivered beyond their estimated time period. IF there was a payment for delivery within a specified time period (or even within a reasonable time-frame), they would be responsible for compensating the customer (or simply absorbing the cost) for that cost should they fail to meet their agreed upon delivery time. (As a side note I suspect the lack of an ensured delivery time is the result of pizza delivery drivers driving like maniacs and violating traffic laws in order to get the product delivered on time. This is probably coupled with the delivery business booming and being more widely utilized.)

This observation of yours should seriously clue you into the fact that there is something going on that you are missing. If there was no agreement to pay the driver for bringing you the pizza in a timely manner, why would they break traffic laws to get it to you? If you get your pizza four hours after you order, what recourse do you have?

When it comes to a question of "value" for "value", again what must consider; of value to whom and for what purpose. For many people, whether the pizza delivery guy brings the pizza with huge smile on his face and wears lots of "flare" or whether he delivers it with a deadpan demeanor in his Marilyn Manson shirt, it would make no difference (it would offer no additional value) to the person who simply wants the pizza he agreed to pay for.

I submit that someone who will be equally satisfied with a pizza delivered hours after he ordered by an unkempt employee with a rude demeanor and by a pizza delivered 30 minutes after he ordered by a competent and productive employee should not order a pizza for delivery under the current conditions in the US. If you can find a local pizza parlor that will guarantee delivery in 30 minutes and tell you that "the driver's payment is included in the price" than you should take your business there.

[SkyTrooper]

Sorry there. I wasn't making a distinction.

Either

a. tipping could be viewed as an implied contract

OR

b. the non-payment of tips is common

But it cannot be both. If it is b. then it is uncertain. If it is a. then it is certain enough that anyone arguing that they can't survive because they get stiffed on tips is simply lying.

My response has been that "certain" cannot be taken as "100% certain to be followed." If it must be, than I dispute that criteria for an implied contract.

When you get into your car you have entered into an "implied contract" with the government that you will follow traffic laws. If you don't want to follow traffic laws than no one is forcing you to drive. The notorious fact that many people run traffic lights does not mean that it is uncertain that people agree to follow traffic laws by getting in their cars.

When you enter into a verbal agreement with someone to give them money for services you have entered into a legal contract, which is not implied at all. If someone breaks the agreement it does not mean that the contract was uncertain, merely that one of the parties is a criminal.

My claim is that the implied contract to pay the driver for his services is "certain" in that an individual ordering a pizza can be reasonably expected to be aware of it. It is not "certain" to occur because there is a small portion of the population that is filled with serious criminals (1% of the population by some estimates), probably a great many more petty criminals (my guess is that at least 25% percent of the population is a personal subjectivist or "prudent predator"), some immigrants or visitors that are not yet aware that they are expected to pay delivery drivers (16% of the population). This would suggest to me that even if an implied contract is known, at least a quarter of the population will intentionally break it if they can get away with it.

[KendallJ]

My response has been that "certain" cannot be taken as "100% certain to be followed." If it must be, than I dispute that criteria for an implied contract.

I'm fine with this

My claim is that the implied contract to pay the driver for his services is "certain" in that an individual ordering a pizza can be reasonably expected to be aware of it.

That's not the criteria of "certain". That is the criteria of "notorious". i.e. well-known, everybody knows about it.

This would suggest to me that even if an implied contract is known, at least a quarter of the population will intentionally break it if they can get away with it.

Then the custom itself would be un "uncertain" custom. I don't particularly care why it doesn't meet that criteria, and why it doesn't is no claim that it "still does". The custom can be taken as certain if everybody (ok, almost everyoday) actually does it.

[SkyTrooper]

My response has been that "certain" cannot be taken as "100% certain to be followed." If it must be, than I dispute that criteria for an implied contract.

I'm fine with this

What do you suggest as our revised objective criteria for an implied contract? It seems to me that the underlying principle must be that the implied contract must not go into effect unless entered into volitionally. Accidentally entering into a contract to pay someone a few dollars for a few minutes worth of labor does not have particularly bad consequences, whereas accidentally entering into a more serious contract would have more serious consequences. Perhaps the scale should be dependent upon the seriousness of the contract, like the "standard of proof" requirement in law.

For example,

For a matter greater than $20:

Notorious to a degree beyond a reasonable doubt (nearly everyone is aware of the implied contract)

Legal (you cannot enter into implied contracts involving illegal transactions)

Reasonable

For a matter of less than $20:

Notorious to a degree beyond a preponderance of evidence (most people are aware of the implied contract)

Legal (you cannot enter into implied contracts involving illegal transactions)

Reasonable

[RationalBiker]

I actually dropped the term "tip" in favor of "fee" a while ago.

That solves it then, because the pizza businesses still recognize them as tips, thus recognizing the voluntary nature of the gratuity. It's also why most places I have seen either say or post signs which say "Tips are appreciated" rather than "Tips are expected". Just because you choose to call it a fee does not make it so.

Right now I would define "driver's tip" as "a fee payed to a pizza delivery driver by a customer that is a certain percentage of the written bill

It certainly helps your argument to come up with your own definition I suppose.

I hope my explanation on the difference between a custom and an implied contract by custom shows you why you are wrong about this.

But I'm not wrong.

I haven't denied the existence of "implied contracts by custom". Specifically, I have denied that it exists in the case of tipping. Tipping is voluntary, it's that simple. The deal I make is between me and the pizza delivery shop. The payment that the driver receives for delivery is between him and the company he works for. It's as simple as that. If he gets a tip, it's purely beyond any contractual agreement and done so at the VOLUNTARY benevolence of the customer. You are simply wrong in your argument otherwise. Gratuities or tips are voluntary, fees and payments are not. A is A, not A is B as you are trying to argue.

Your example of the cab is NOT analogous because in that case you are in fact talking about the payment or the fee for the service, not an additional gratuity (because some people tip cabbies too). The "implied contract" certainly applies in that case because you are actually talking about payments and fees, NOT tips or gratuities. It's so simple I don't understand why you can't make the distinction.

Before I debate if the criteria is correct or if a payment to the delivery driver meets the criteria, I want you to concede that an "implied contract" can actually exist. Otherwise I am just wasting my time.

If you wasting your time, it's not because of me, it's because you argument does not hold water.

This observation of yours should seriously clue you into the fact that there is something going on that you are missing.

I'm not missing a thing here. This observation of mine is based on the fact that delivery services in my area previously did give guarenteed delivery times and stopped doing so most likely for the reasons I mentioned. The delivery time meant that if the pizza was not delivered on time, either you got your pizza free, or they gave you a discounted price (from the payment you made to the company for delivering the pizza). So that you understand this clearly, the COMPANY absorbed the cost of the late delivery discount or free pizza, NOT the driver. This most definitely indicates that the price of the timely delivery was included in the agreement I made when I ordered the pizza. However, since they no longer give discounts or delivery time assurances, and the cost of the pizza did not go down, I can safely assume that the delivery fee is still included in the price I agree to pay, I just have no legitimate expectation of exactly when I will get my pizza, only a reasonable non-binding estimate. My recourse for 4 hour old pizza is to not accept it and not pay for it, and to not do business with that company again. A company that consistently delivers pizzas four hours late will not be in business long.

However, I have several companies in my area that have thriving businesses despite that fact that the Motley Crue groupie who delivers the pizza has little to no personality but is capable of delivering a pizza in a reasonable amount of time.

When you get into your car you have entered into an "implied contract" with the government that you will follow traffic laws. If you don't want to follow traffic laws than no one is forcing you to drive.

Actually, this occurs when you get your license, not simply when you get in a car. And it's not merely implied, it's legally required.

[KendallJ]

What do you suggest as our revised objective criteria for an implied contract? It seems to me that the underlying principle must be that the implied contract must not go into effect unless entered into volitionally. Accidentally entering into a contract to pay someone a few dollars for a few minutes worth of labor does not have particularly bad consequences, whereas accidentally entering into a more serious contract would have more serious consequences. Perhaps the scale should be dependent upon the seriousness of the contract, like the "standard of proof" requirement in law.

For example,

For a matter greater than $20:

Notorious to a degree beyond a reasonable doubt (nearly everyone is aware of the implied contract)

Legal (you cannot enter into implied contracts involving illegal transactions)

Reasonable

For a matter of less than $20:

Notorious to a degree beyond a preponderance of evidence (most people are aware of the implied contract)

Legal (you cannot enter into implied contracts involving illegal transactions)

Reasonable

hmmm. "Certain" is now conspicuously missing....

[SkyTrooper]

I haven't denied the existence of "implied contracts by custom". Specifically, I have denied that it exists in the case of tipping.

Actually you did deny it. Unless you seriously misunderstood my argument.

It would appear now that you are making a legal case rather than a moral case. Regardless of that, it still boils down to "if everyone else does, I'm obliged to do it too." Regardless of whatever contextually objective reasoning a person may have, regardless of whatever best serves their rational self-interest, your argument suggests that you would have them obliged because of what the masses do. There is no getting around that that is the center-piece of your argument.

Now you are at the same point I am at with KendallJ and we are all basically on the same page. Please list what objective criteria you propose to define an "implied contract by custom," give some of your own examples, and show how tipping fails to meet these criteria.

My recourse for 4 hour old pizza is to not accept it and not pay for it, and to not do business with that company again. A company that consistently delivers pizzas four hours late will not be in business long.

Why? When did the Company agree to bring you your pizza in a timely fashion?

There is no "payment for delivery" which is separate from "payment for the pizza" when I call and say "I want a pizza delivered, this is the kind of pizza I want, how much do I owe?" If there is a payment for delivery, it should be stated when I say "I want a pizza delivered, this is the kind of pizza I want, how much do I owe?" However, if there were a "payment for delivery", that would most assuredly kick any "obligatory" gratuity right in the head.

Where I live, no delivery service ensures that you will receive your food within a certain time period. They give you a time estimate, but rarely (if ever) any kind of compensation for food delivered beyond their estimated time period.

When it comes to a question of "value" for "value", again what must consider; of value to whom and for what purpose. For many people, whether the pizza delivery guy brings the pizza with huge smile on his face and wears lots of "flare" or whether he delivers it with a deadpan demeanor in his Marilyn Manson shirt, it would make no difference (it would offer no additional value) to the person who simply wants the pizza he agreed to pay for.

Based on the contract you claim to have entered into, there does not seem to be any rational reason that you should be upset over a pizza delivered four hours after you've ordered it.

[SkyTrooper]

hmmm. "Certain" is now conspicuously missing....

Are you joking?! I was brainstorming, which should have been obvious from reading that post. I've noticed a tendency for people on this board to misinterpret every comment in the worst way possible and then argue against it. Didn't you just concede the "100% certain to happen" criteria as impossible?

Edited March 25, 2007 by badkarma556

[SkyTrooper]

OK, just to clarify, what is the purpose of a philosophical discussion? Are we attempting to prove our preconcieved notions, or actually discover the truth of the matter? I didn't mean to snap a KendallJ, but this constant prodding has become ridiculous.

Assuming that it is in our best interests to actually learn what the truth is, and that we should act in our best interests, what method should we use to do so? Should we attack each other with subtle Ad Hominem and reply to ordered logical arguments with rants? Maybe we should pretend to be "Objectivist" priests and explain to the poor confused irrational dissenters how they can achieve redemption.

I hope you realize the logical conclusion of the predominant line of thinking on in this thread is that pizza delivery drivers should all quit their jobs and go do something else.

If no one wants to have a real discussion about it, I'm prepared to stick this on top of the philosophical hill

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935

and declare victory.

I will also be declaring myself the Patron Philosopher of Tipped Workers.

[RationalBiker]

Now you are at the same point I am at with KendallJ and we are all basically on the same page. Please list what objective criteria you propose to define an "implied contract by custom," give some of your own examples, and show how tipping fails to meet these criteria.

I have no need to do that. I only need to demonstrate why voluntary tipping is not morally obligatory, something I have already done. However, I did cite that the cab example is an "implied agreement" and how it differentiates from voluntary tipping.

Why? When did the Company agree to bring you your pizza in a timely fashion?

My quote;

Where I live, no delivery service ensures that you will receive your food within a certain time period. They give you a time estimate, but rarely (if ever) any kind of compensation for food delivered beyond their estimated time period.

So the answer to your question is when they said "it will be around 30-45 minutes". As I said, a non-binding estimated time as opposed to a guarenteed delivery time with a money back agreement like they had done in the past. You really should read what I wrote. 4 hours is not reasonably close to 30-45 minutes. 1 hour is reasonably close, even when delivered by Mr. Motley Crue non-personality guy.

Based on the contract you claim to have entered into, there does not seem to be any rational reason that you should be upset over a pizza delivered four hours after you've ordered it.

Where did I say I would be upset? I said I would not accept the pizza, and not do business with them again. One doesn't need to be upset to accomplish either of those two goals. It would really behoove you to read what I wrote. In fact, the particular quote you plucked from the rest of the context ONLY addresses the demeanor of the driver, not the timeliness of delivery, something I addressed in a different passage. So based on the quote you responded to, your response is irrelevant.

I've concluded that this is a waste of my time because; 1) you are claiming A is B by saying "tip" is a "fee" and chose to redefine words to fit your position. 2) You fail to acknowledge that it is "notoriously known" that some people do not tip hence ruining your "implied contract" argument. 3) You fail to recognize that the drivers salary is contigent on the agreement between him and his employer, not him and the customer.

Until you get back to reality I'll refrain from further input.

[KendallJ]

Are you joking?! I was brainstorming, which should have been obvious from reading that post. I've noticed a tendency for people on this board to misinterpret every comment in the worst way possible and then argue against it. Didn't you just concede the "100% certain to happen" criteria as impossible?

Hi badkarma, I sense some exhasperation on your part. I would suggest that tone or intent in any post is usually less than obvious. Please don't expect everyone to get where you're going. I'm not particularly exasperated here but I have no idea where you are going with your most recent posts. You seem to think I agree with you in some way, and I frankly don't.

Here is my basic issue: you haven't made a case that there is an implied contract. I haven't suggested in the least that you and I should brainstorm to revise criteria for said implied contract because I don't believe that there is one. Nor do I believe that there should be one. The custom is by no means certain and that is enough to cancel a basis for your claim that there is an implied contract.

[Inspector]

If there was no agreement to pay the driver for bringing you the pizza in a timely manner, why would they break traffic laws to get it to you?

Because, like he said, if they are late, the pizza is free. (for the ones that guarantee this, if they don't, then see below)

If you get your pizza four hours after you order, what recourse do you have?

Then the pizza is free. I don't know of a single place that doesn't do this, and if they didn't do it then I would refuse to pay them or ever patronize their business again.

I submit that someone who will be equally satisfied with a pizza delivered hours after he ordered by an unkempt employee with a rude demeanor and by a pizza delivered 30 minutes after he ordered by a competent and productive employee should not order a pizza for delivery under the current conditions in the US.

You're package-dealing the pizza guy's kemptness and demeanor with the timeliness and status of the pizza. The latter is part of a explicit, contractual obligation on the part of the delivery place. If the pizza is not on time and in good condition, then they had bloody well better provide a discount. If the pizza guy wants to earn a tip, he had better do something in addition to this explicit, contractual agreement.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Inspector

[Inspector]

Your example of the cab is NOT analogous because in that case you are in fact talking about the payment or the fee for the service, not an additional gratuity (because some people tip cabbies too). The "implied contract" certainly applies in that case because you are actually talking about payments and fees, NOT tips or gratuities.

This is true, and as additional evidence, I offer the fact that a cabbie can and will take you to court for failing to pay your end of that implicit agreement. But a pizza place cannot and will not take you to court because no such agreement exists. There is an expectation on the part of many people involved, which may or may not be rational, depending on what exactly that expectation is.

[SkyTrooper]

I honestly feel no need to respond to anything you people just said, until you agree the self evident fact that there is something that makes you more compelled to tip a delivery driver than an engineer, and you agree to use logic to investigate what that thing is.

Honestly I'm extremely disappointed. I thought Objectivists might the only sane people left on the planet. I guess I was wrong.

This remains my conclusion:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=142085

[Inspector]

I honestly feel no need to respond to anything you people just said, until you agree the self evident fact that there is something that makes you more compelled to tip a delivery driver than an engineer, and you agree to use logic to investigate what that thing is.

I thought that the whole point of the fact that we don't agree with you is that we don't agree with that statement. I agree that a lot of people think that is true. But I disagree that their thinking so constitutes a compulsion on my part.

I think you should stick in this discussion. I think your answer is close. We're really zeroing in on it.

Take this taxi thing. Here, you have an agreement where we all agree it is an implicit and binding agreement (even though in every cab I've been in, it is an explicit agreement, since a price is displayed on the dashboard of the cab). But we think the pizza fee does not fall within this category, whereas you do. Have you focused on why?

Here is a possibility (not necessarily my final thought on this):

Have you considered that a tip may be implicit, but a fee is not? That since what you discuss is a fee and not a tip, it may be implicit to tip, but not to do the thing that you advocate (which is actually a fee)?

I'm just throwing that possibility out there... I'd like to hear what everyone thinks of it. But in either case, you should continue this discussion.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Inspector

[KendallJ]

I honestly feel no need to respond to anything you people just said, until you agree the self evident fact that there is something that makes you more compelled to tip a delivery driver than an engineer, and you agree to use logic to investigate what that thing is.

I have to admit that I chuckled when I read this. badkarma, do you really mean what you say here?

You want me to

a. agree to the "self-evidency"

b. but ONLY AFTERWARDS use logic to examine it's nature?

How about we train some good old fashioned logic back on the issue of whether there is a self-evidency or not? Once we've agreed on what is self-evident, then maybe we can move on.

There is something that causes me to tip, but it is hardly compulsion, and my continual claim is that it is not an ethical "should" (i.e. there is nothing that says that because I tip, that someone else should feel as though they must ethically tip). That is the nature of it. You're welcome to disagree, but not to demand that I take your version as "self-evident".

If this is really your definition of sanity, I'll opt for a straight-jacket please. XL, in midnight blue.

[SkyTrooper]

Obviously I'm not about to damn Objectivists, but my frustration on this isn't coming from nowhere. I did not want you to take the argument as self-evident, but to take the fact that your explanation was lacking and that we should rationally determine a proper explanation as obvious.

I observe:

1) Almost all people feel compelled to tip delivery drivers, no one feels compelled to tip engineers.

2) I would never dream of not tipping a delivery driver. Particularly since I know that is how they make a profit.

If we were just to use Oxan's Razor, my explanation (although not complete) will more effectively describe these observations than any other that I have seen.

My frustration comes from a few cases where I've felt like I was fighting against an Epistemological method that I'm sure Ayn Rand would not approve of. It seems to go something like this:

1) Determine what you preconceived feelings are on a particular topic

2) Assert your preconceived feelings as the proper explanation

3) Support your preconceived feelings using a stream of consciousness argument

4) Use Rand's terms to give the stream of consciousness argument an air of illegitimacy

5) Reread your argument and convince yourself that it is correct

6) Dismiss any dissenters offhand as "irrational"

If there is an Objectivist trapping, it is this method. Now I have to admit I've slipped into this sort of explanation on occasion when talking to people about topics I don't have much interest in. It's mostly from intellectual laziness. If you want to go on I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you'll have to determine the method for doing so and take the lead.

[SkyTrooper]

I'm fairly sick of this topic, but if you want to find the actual truth of the matter you might want to start from this observation:

The source of some tips is Altruism

Some low-wage worker seems to be suffering so a person tips them. This is generally a second-hander action, since the person tipping is only tipping because his beliefs give him a feeling of obligation to other people.

The source of some tips is Benevolence

Maybe a productive employee looks down and you just want to be 'nice' because it will make you feel good. If done occasionally, this seems like a perfectly acceptable behavior.

The source of some tips is a Rational Obligation

You go visit India and a person offers to carry your luggage. You agree for them to do so and then you 'tip' them for their services. This isn't really a 'gratuity', but a fee that you implied you would pay by agreeing to accept their services.

So, determine an objective criteria for each and determine if a "Delivery Driver Tip" meets the criteria. My estimate is that when you see someone give a driver $20 for a $15 bill what you are really witnessing is

($15 Spoken Agreement to Pay for the Pizza)+($1.50 Tip from a Rational Obligation)+($3.50 Tip from Altruism)=$20

Let me guess what the reply will be "No. You are wrong. Follow your silly byzantine customs if you want but you are wrong. Stop propagating your irrational ideas."

[Inspector]

Oxan's Razor

It's "Occam's Razor."

My frustration comes from a few cases where I've felt like I was fighting against an Epistemological method that I'm sure Ayn Rand would not approve of. It seems to go something like this:

1) Determine what you preconceived feelings are on a particular topic

Slow down there, cowboy. I was in agreement with your position until I was convinced otherwise. David's explanation made sense to me, fully, which is not something I could say about the position I held previously, which was the same as yours.

Let me guess what the reply will be "No. You are wrong. Follow your silly byzantine customs if you want but you are wrong. Stop propagating your irrational ideas."

Since at this point you are simply making unsupported assertions, what precisely do you expect in response?

[SkyTrooper]

Since at this point you are simply making unsupported assertions, what precisely do you expect in response?

The point I am making, and what is seriously driving me crazy here, is the simple obvious fact that David's explanation is insufficient. It certainly doesn't account for my behavior when I feel compelled to tip someone even if it does for your's.

Your logic, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to have been "I rarely tip unless I'm feeling benevolent, here is an explanation that explains what I do, therefore this explanation must be right."

My 'self-evident' claim is that there are different reasons why people give tips. Some of the types of tips are a 'gratuity' that are a result of benevolence, trying to look rich, or having motivations of Altruism. There is at least one type of tip that is more like a 'fee' and exists to compensate a worker for work he has done for you beyond what he was required to do by his employer.

All I'm asking and I'll I've ever asked for you to take as self-evident is this: David's explanation is lacking and we should use logic along with an attitude of basic respect for our positions to pursue the truth.

If you can't accept that, we're done here.

[SkyTrooper]

Actually I need to thank my detractors, you have greatly improved my thinking on this. This argument is a logical support of both your argument and mine, and simply requires objective criteria for (9) and debate over (10)

1) A 'Tip' is an additional payment to a worker and is motivated either by Altruism, Benevolence, Showboating, or by a Real Obligation.

2) A Tip motivated by a Real Obligation has a nature similar to a fee that has been incurred volitionally in the same way as fees that have been incurred as the result of a contract.

3) A contract defines the conditions under which two parties are willing to trade value

4) From the nature of (3), there is such an entity as an "implied contract" (a contract which is understood by both parties but not stated)

5) It is in a person's rational self-interest to fulfill all contracts he enters into

6) Every entity has objective criteria that must be used to identify it

7) The legal objective criteria for a contract to qualify as "implied" are that it must be notorious (well known), certain (will always occur), legal (not involving an illegal act), and reasonable

8) (2) is similar to (4)

9) From (8), the objective criteria for a Tip motivated by a Real Obligation must be similar to (7)

10) "Pizza Delivery" is the act of having Pizza delivered from elsewhere to the door of the Customer

11) If a tip to a Pizza Delivery Driver meets the criteria of a Tip motivated by a Real Obligation than, from (8) and (5), it should be payed

12) If a tip to a Pizza Delivery Driver does not meet the criteria of a Tip motivated by a Real Obligation, from (8) and (5), it should not be payed

Edited March 26, 2007 by badkarma556

[Inspector]

The point I am making, and what is seriously driving me crazy here, is the simple obvious fact that David's explanation is insufficient. It certainly doesn't account for my behavior when I feel compelled to tip someone even if it does for your's.

What accounts for your behavior is your having convinced yourself that you have entered a contract when you have not. I am not convinced of that, so I don't feel compelled. End of explanation.

Your logic, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to have been "I rarely tip unless I'm feeling benevolent, here is an explanation that explains what I do, therefore this explanation must be right."

No, I have always, in the past, tipped. You seem to think I am working from preconceived notions here, but I told you before that I am not.

My 'self-evident' claim is that there are different reasons why people give tips.

Yes, it is evident that people give tips for varying reasons.

All I'm asking and I'll I've ever asked for you to take as self-evident is this: David's explanation is lacking

It is lacking what, precisely? Are you willing to accept the possibility that David is right and the majority of people are wrong about tipping? That the majority is being illogical?